Turkolmez Kadir, Akpinar Cagri, Kubilay Eralp, Suer Evren
Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Ibn-i Sina Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
J Endourol. 2022 Sep;36(9):1214-1222. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0073. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
To compare the short-term and 1-year follow-up functional outcomes of modified anatomical structure preserving and Retziusrepairing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (APR-RARP) compared with Retzius-sparing (RS) RARP. Eighty consecutive patients 40-75 years of age with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer were prospectively randomized to APR-RARP or RS-RARP. Urinary continence (UC) recovery rates were evaluated from catheter removal up to 1 year follow-up. Postoperative UC was defined as 0 pads/one security pad per day. UC recovery rates from catheter removal to 1 year were calculated by Kaplan-Meier curve; log-rank test was used for the curve comparison. Postoperative potency was evaluated at 3 and 12 months after surgeries. Perioperative complications, positive surgical margin (PSM), and biochemical recurrence rates represent secondary outcomes reported in the study. At the catheter removal, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, 52.5% (confidence interval [CI] 95%: 37.6-67), 82.5% (CI 95%: 70.8-94), 95% (CI 95%: 88.3-99.1), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.5-99.9), and 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.5-99.9) of men undergoing the APR-RARP were continent (0 pads/one security pad per day), compared with 61.5% (CI 95%: 46.5-76.6), 89.7% (CI 95%: 80.3-98.1), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9), 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9), and 97.5% (CI 95%: 92.6-99.9) undergoing the RS-RARP, respectively, and the Kaplan Meier curve showed no statistically significant difference for both technique at any time point (log-rank = 0.556). The median (95% CI) time to UC recovery was 9.8 (5.2-14.4) days for the APR-RARP 6.7 (3.2-10.2) days for the RS-RARP group. Potency rates were similar in both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgeries. The two compared approaches; in terms of rate of complications, PSM was similar. Surgeons can achieve functional results comparable to the RS technique with the modified reconstructive anterior approach, without changing the surgical technique they are used to.
为比较改良保留解剖结构和保留Retzius间隙修复的机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(APR-RARP)与保留Retzius间隙(RS)的RARP的短期和1年随访功能结果。连续80例年龄在40-75岁之间的低中危前列腺癌患者被前瞻性随机分为APR-RARP组或RS-RARP组。从拔除导尿管直至1年随访期间评估尿失禁(UC)恢复率。术后UC定义为每天0片/1片安全垫。通过Kaplan-Meier曲线计算从拔除导尿管到1年的UC恢复率;采用对数秩检验进行曲线比较。术后性功能在术后3个月和12个月进行评估。围手术期并发症、手术切缘阳性(PSM)和生化复发率是该研究报告的次要结果。在术后拔除导尿管时、术后1、3、6和12个月,接受APR-RARP的男性尿失禁恢复率(每天0片/1片安全垫)分别为52.5%(95%置信区间[CI]:37.6-67)、82.5%(CI 95%:70.8-94)、95%(CI 95%:88.3-99.1)、97.5%(CI 95%:92.5-99.9)和97.5%(CI 95%:92.5-99.9),而接受RS-RARP的分别为61.5%(CI 95%:46.5-76.6)、89.7%(CI 95%:80.3-98.1)、97.5%(CI 95%:92.6-99.9)、97.5%(CI 95%:92.6-99.9)和97.5%(CI 95%:92.6-99.9),Kaplan-Meier曲线显示在任何时间点两种技术均无统计学显著差异(对数秩=0.556)。APR-RARP组UC恢复的中位(95%CI)时间为9.8(5.2-14.4)天,RS-RARP组为6.7(3.2-10.2)天。两组术后3个月和12个月的性功能恢复率相似。两种比较方法在并发症发生率、PSM方面相似。外科医生采用改良的前入路重建方法可获得与RS技术相当的功能结果,而无需改变他们所习惯的手术技术。